Despite the fact that General Elections have tended to be called every four years since World War Two....
If Labour wanted four-year fixed parliaments instead of five they had 13 years to arrange it.
Harriet Harman specificly said that "we" Labour agreed with fixed terms, but that they should be four years not five during the Queen's Speech debate, so apperently now they do, except they want four years instead of five.
Note that under this bill, Parliament requires a 2/3 majority to have an election earlier than specified; an early election is also still held if a motion of no confidence passes. This bill basically just says "we'll always have a vote on the first thursday of may if we don't dissolve ourselves after five years and don't bipartisanly agree to move the election up"
So, let's say that 51% of MP's vote for an early General Election. How can a government carry on if a majority of MP's have lost their confidence in them?
Would the PM resign and the Leader of the Opposition be asked to form a government, without an election occuring?
That's how it works in Sweden at least. An early election is only held if no candidate for the job is abled to be approved.
True, and since Labour wouldn't be able to form a 326 seat majority government without the Liberals, the nationalists, Caroline Lucas and Sylvia Hermond, then a new election would have to be held. This is part of the reason why the Liberals went with the Tories in May, the numbers just aren't there for Labour to stay in government.
I don't see a realistic situation were the Tories are pulled down on 51%, the new Labour leader becomes PM with their 256 seats, and there
not be another election.
